Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sheikh Chamru Vs. Bhaggan

Sheikh Chamru vs Bhaggan

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 22, 1929
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/456461

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheikh Chamru

Respondent

Bhaggan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1930All219

Excerpt

- .....the suit was orginally intsituted in the revenue court. sheikh bhaggan took the plea inter alia that the suit was not cognizable by the revenue court. his ground was that plots 966 and 967 were no longer under cultivation. this plea found favour with the learned assistant collector, and he dismissed the suit.3. the plaintiff, chamru, had to file a second suit in the civil court. then bhaggan raised the plea that the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. the learned munsiff has accordingly made the present reference.4. we are of opinion that the revenue court had jurisdiction to hear the suit for partition and it will be the revenue court, which will again hear the case.5. section 37, tenancy act, permits one of several tenants to institute a suit for division of a holding. holding is defined as a parcel of land held under one tenure. this would naturally refer to the engagement under which the land was taken. it may be that part of the land, originally taken for agricultural purposes, has been converted into abadi land with or without the consent of the landlord. but this would not interfere with the original engagement. in this view a division of a holding which includes all the lands that were originally let out will lie in the revenue court.6. we direct the court below to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. we also direct that it will order the defendant to pay all the costs before it to the plaintiff. the costs of this reference will also be paid by the defendant.

Full Judgment

1. This is a reference by the learned Munsiff of Allahabad asking for the opinion of this Court as to whether he or the revenue Court should try the suit.

2. It appears, on the facts found both by the revenue Court and the civil Court, that, initially, there was an occupancy holding belonging to the parties to the present reference and consisting of four plots of land. Two of these plots, 1275 and 1276, are still under cultivation. Two other plots, which are much smaller in area, are no longer under cultivation, and on a portion of one of these plots, namely, 966, the opposite party, Sheikh Bhaggan, has built a small house. The plaintiff (Sheikh) Chamru) wanted that plots Nos. 996 and 967 (now not cultivated) should be partitioned. Evidently he thinks that any vacant land that he may get he would be able to bring under cultivation. The suit was orginally intsituted in the revenue Court. Sheikh Bhaggan took the plea inter alia that the suit was not cognizable by the revenue Court. His ground was that plots 966 and 967 were no longer under cultivation. This plea found favour with the learned Assistant Collector, and he dismissed the suit.

3. The plaintiff, Chamru, had to file a second suit in the civil Court. Then Bhaggan raised the plea that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The learned Munsiff has accordingly made the present reference.

4. We are of opinion that the revenue Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit for partition and it will be the revenue Court, which will again hear the case.

5. Section 37, Tenancy Act, permits one of several tenants to institute a suit for division of a holding. Holding is defined as a parcel of land held under one tenure. This would naturally refer to the engagement under which the land was taken. It may be that part of the land, originally taken for agricultural purposes, has been converted into abadi land with or without the consent of the landlord. But this would not interfere with the original engagement. In this view a division of a holding which includes all the lands that were originally let out will lie in the revenue Court.

6. We direct the Court below to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. We also direct that it will order the defendant to pay all the costs before it to the plaintiff. The costs of this reference will also be paid by the defendant.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial